User talk:JackofOz/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16


All okay?

Hey Jack. I know you don't know me, but some of your contribs in the last few months have been sounding a bit unhappy and snappish, sometimes escalating a tiny thing into a major throwing of words. It's not like I've been stalking you, we just happen to read and contribute to many of the same pages. I've been used to thinking of you as the embodiment of cool unflappability, like the teacher nobody can wind up who calmly restores order, and it's been a bit disconcerting. Are you alright? (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, whoever you are. Thanks for your concern. As far as I know I’m alright. But sometimes people can feel perfectly OK while actually going off the rails. They therefore need someone outside their box to feed back to them what’s going on, so that they can become aware of it and have the opportunity of doing something about it. The two incidents that come to mind are the very recent exchange with Eliko and the one regarding Steve Baker. And I had a few things to say about Baseball Bugs a little while back. Were there any others you had in mind? Re these three episodes, is it true that I “escalat[ed] a tiny thing into a major throwing of words”? Hmmm. I suppose, to some observers, that may be what I did. There’s always a spectrum of responses to any issue. The question is, though, were my words justified under those circumstances? I certainly thought so at the time. I’m not in the habit of going into print around here just to display my writing skills; there’s always something that has concerned or troubled me, and I feel secure enough about myself to express what’s on my mind. I have been advised in the past that I am not always the world’s most succinct writer. I accept that’s a discipline I sometimes struggle with. I’m probably struggling with it right now. The fact that I use a certain number of words to say what someone else might achieve in half as many, does not of itself necessarily indicate that I feel twice as strongly about the issue as they do; although, it might in a given case. Maybe I come across as rantescent some of the time. Maybe I’m doing that now. Maybe it’s simply the length of some of my responses, as opposed to their content, that invites such perceptions. Is this something I’m prepared to wear? I think I am. Many of the great writers and thinkers were misjudged and underestimated, but did it change their way of being one iota? Of course not. Now, I don’t put myself in that lofty company, so I give myself more room to change, and I have a considerable degree of willingness to change, when I am given good reason to do so. But I’m damned if I’ll be apologising for myself or changing my ways just to fit in with someone else’s pre-conceived idea of how to behave. Let me be myself, and I’ll do the same for them - as long as no line-crossing is going on, of course.
So, to return to the point, I again note your concern. "Disconcerting" is a fairly strong word. Is there anything going on? I do have certain private issues to deal with, as do we all, and I am overdue for a wikibreak and a work break, both of which are happening next week when I go away for a few days with my other half to Oblivion (later renamed Tasmania). The fact that I’m turning 60 while I'm away has been on my mind for some while, I must admit (in fact, the trip away was my way of avoiding having to deal with any special celebrations or surprise parties or whatever else that would rub it in). These milestones are funny things. I quite liked the idea of being 40, and 50 was rather grand in its way, but I absolutely HATED turning 30, and this difficult 60 thing has crept up on me without any warning whatsoever, until a few months ago. It really isn’t fair; the government should do something about it.
And with those words of a demented genius, I bid you good day. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jack, don't be scarred, it doesn't hurt. Mine was celebrated with the premiere of a 1 page a capella Halleluja (pdf on the web) by the composer of the Piccolo Quintet. Will you have time before your break to look at the Verdi Requiem (concerts next weekend, of the quintet also, so I can't hear it this time)? Then have a great time in oblivion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda. I have about 30 minutes before I have to log off, so I'll have a very quick peek at the Requiem. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you enjoy your holiday, as you thoroughly deserve it. I hope you return to the project refreshed and happy. I don't expect you to remember me: it's a long time since I used my log-in, due to a stalking incident. When the stalking didn't really go away, just under control, I didn't feel able to return to my account or create a new one. So now I edit anon and, given my service provider routinely switches my IP, I don't build up enough recognisable history for my stalker to notice. I try to keep article-space edits in different sessions to reference desk edits, specifically so this person won't be able to profile me any more. This is the only way I could see to return to the project safely. So I don't expect you to recognise me :( I do expect you to remember when there has been previous discussion on a word being innocent of your connotations in another dialect ;) Happy birthday, and have fun. (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I too wish you a happy holiday, and look forward to seeing the papyrus font in December again (as it happens, I too will be traveling the day after tomorrow, but, alas, will be over 16,000 km away from you). Enjoy your well-deserved break! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Sluzzelin. I don't even know what the hell I'm doing on here in my so-called wikibreak, but there you have it. I'll get off soon, I promise.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rachmaninov and piano rolls

G'day from the other side of the world, from someone who was once married to an Australian. They get everywhere, don't they! I've re-edited one of the sentences about Rachmaninov and piano rolls. I wrote the text originally, using the word "perforated", and you changed it to "recorded". The trouble is, the rolls made by Aeolian from 1900 onwards were not recorded, not in the way we would mean it nowadays. Later on, of course, recorded rolls became very popular, with Rachmaninov recording for Ampico, and many other pianists recording Rachmaninov's music on other systems. But at the time Rachmaninov himself had a pianola at Ivanovka, the rolls were transcribed from the sheet music by musical editors. Now you could argue that the recording angel simply writes names in a book while those less sinful than ourselves enter through the Pearly Gates, but I think people will imagine hands on keyboards, and it really wasn't like that.

I've altered your word "recorded" to "published", because that allows for both types of roll. Thought I would let you know.

All the best,

Pianola (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Please don't lead CA3 on to continue commenting on his issue with another editor. I just warned him a day or so ago to let it drop. Franamax (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Translated that means you are "encouraged" to choose the "be quiet" option. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Jack is free to talk about whatever he wants so long as he is not displaying an ongoing pattern of disruption and he knows it. He also knows that if he has a question about what I say to him, he can ask me to clarify it and doesn't need assistance from you. It is your behaviour that is under scrutiny here Cuddlyable3, not JackOfOz's. Franamax (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sonata categories

Hi. The Sonata categories that you just removed from many articles (e.g. here) were placed quite deliberately against the varying composer articles. The reason being that in many cases, composers are minor-enough to not have a separate page listing their works. Therefore, there is no alternative but to place the sonata categories against the page that lists the actual works. This is something that would have been nice if you discussed with me before wholesale change (I'm not that impressed that you would assume that no thought went into the addition of the categories). You have written (in a number of edit comments) "cat is for a specific musical work, not for its composer"—could you please point me to that definition at WP? Could you please undo your changes until either another solution is found, or discussion takes place? Thanks.  GFHandel.   22:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I could just as well ask you why you didn't discuss these categorisations before making them. Why is it that I have to assume your entries were thoughtful and appropriate, but my removal of them is consigned to something lower on the scale?
Look, it's really simple. Just because there's no article on any of Georg Ludwig Schmidthaus's 378 Oboe Sonatas or 157 Flute Sonatas does not make it OK to categorise Schmidthaus as an "Oboe Sonata" or a "Flute Sonata". He personally was not an Oboe Sonata, or a Flute Sonata, or a Violin Sonata, or a symphony, concerto, song cycle, requiem or any other kind of musical work. He was the composer of such works. Your reasoning would make it OK to categorise an article on a musical work by an obscure composer who lacks an article himself as something like "German composer", "Jewish musician", "Deaths in 1736", etc etc. Wrong again. Works are not their composers, and composers are not their works. They are separate things and must be categorised separately.
As for Therefore, there is no alternative but to place the sonata categories against the page that lists the actual works, there most certainly IS an alternative - write a stub on the work itself. You are NOT forced to miscategorise articles, so please do not plead lack of choice. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
(As you are aware) I'm not required to discuss before adding in an attempt to improve WP for the readers, however it would be polite for you to discuss before removing the work of others (especially when things are not black-and-white—as I'm sure you're now realising).
The categorisations I made can also be seen as interim measures before list pages and/or stub articles get created (if they do). I believe you have made the mistake of assuming that WP is a finished work (remember that there is no deadline at WP). My additions made it possible for others to find the sonatas, and to begin to write stubs—in their own subject areas (I've written dozens in mine, thank you very much).
You are also going to have to face intense questions of notability if you believe that articles such as Sonata for oboe and piano (Hollingsworth) should be created (for Heaven's sake Hollingsworth doesn't even have a separate article listing his works—let alone articles on his individual works).
The changes I made (two weeks ago) were not objected to by anyone else, so your interpretation of some sort of category definition needs wider testing. Where would be the appropriate place to bring this to a wider audience? How about Wikipedia talk:Categorization? Or should it be also be on a musical page? I'm more than happy to abide by consensus decision—are you?
 GFHandel.   23:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
A few points.
  • Yes, we're all encouraged to be Bold, and good on you for being so. But that doesn't mean that everything done in the name of boldness deserves to remain intact.
  • As for when discussions should take place, there's no rule that says they can take place only after an edit is made. I have often sought comments, consensus etc before proceeding to make potentially controversial edits. And you must be aware that these categorisations of yours are controversial, because where else in Wikipedia do we see composers categorised as if they were musical works? There are no articles on the 12 String Symphonies by Felix Mendelssohn, but is Category:Compositions for string orchestra applied to either his own article or to List of compositions by Felix Mendelssohn? No, and neither should it be.
  • I am fully aware that Wikipedia is not a finished work. I've spent a large chunk of the last 7 years helping to make it less unfinished than it was, but I know the work will never end. I don't know where this debating point comes from, or even why it's relevant to our discussion. The fact that the project is not finished is no argument for miscategorising articles, not even on an interim basis.
  • Lack of objections by anybody else is no argument for anything. It does not mean you've got a consensus. The best you can claim is an implied consensus, but only up till the point when others object to what you've done. If you're lucky, others will explicitly agree with your edits. But till now, these edits have been treated with complete indifference, which could be for a number of reasons, including lack of will/energy given the large number of articles affected. Had it been only 1 or 2 articles, I think you'd have had some negative feedback already; but when it's a dozen or more, many editors will just throw up their hands and let someone else take the running. Well, I'm your man for that.
  • I'd be more than happy to canvass this issue at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. No need to split the discussion over more than one place.
  • There's no need for the "Are you?" thing. We're all subject to consensus here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, I believe that you are not willing to be flexible enough to see my point (on an issue that is not black-and-white). Hopefully other points-of-view (and flexibility) will come from other editors here.  GFHandel.   02:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So, anyone who disagrees with you is now automatically inflexible? That's inflexibility personified, if I may say so. I understand perfectly why you've made these edits; I just disagree it's the right way to go, that's all. I've said that I'm perfectly happy to go to WTC and let the general consensus, whatever it is, guide the final outcome. If that's not being flexible, I don't know what would be. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help

Hello Jack ~ thanks for your help with the article Alexei Lubimov. You made fixing it look easy! Kind regards ~ (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back to your chipper self


Chipper, that's nothing. Next week, I'll be be chippest. I feel terribly sorry for people who are merely chip.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook too long

Hi, your DYK hook for Wuthering Heights (Herrmann) was too long. I've suggested an alternate, but feel free to add another alternate if you're not satisfied with my version. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 10:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Henry Krips

  • Henry Krips and Henry Joseph Krips: On 28 May 2008, I created an article that I called Henry Krips. It was about an Austrian-born conductor who moved to Australia and died here in 1987. The article had numerous edits since I created it. On 24 November just gone, User:Jordancperry decided to create an article about another Henry Krips, a living Professor of Cultural Studies at Claremont Graduate University. He renamed the conductor’s article Henry Joseph Krips and misappropriated Henry Krips for the professor’s article – see [1]. All very poor form. But it get worse, because the edit history of my guy, the conductor, is now attached to the professor’s article! Can a kind soul somehow fix this mess up? And tell jordan how things are done around here. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done. I have put a hatlink in page Henry Krips. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


Hey JackofOz. Great to hear that you are an advanced pianist! Would you please give us any suggestions for this article: Latsabidze Any advices would be higly appreciative! Thanks! Sausa11 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Sausa

Dear Jackofoz, thanks for all your contributions in my article. I just want to let you know that you can continue editing this article now here Thanks again! Sausa11 (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Australian_Labor_Party#Position on titles, knighthoods etc

Anyone? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that only the University of Woolloomooloo has carried out research on this topic. Per that research, it would appear that even the most staunch republican has a lingering affection for the "Fount of honour", Our Liz --Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Henry Krips

While I appreciate your assistance, your approach was aggressive and highly unprofessional. My apologies for any inconvenience by way of my mistake, but I would suggest you be mindful that due to Wikipedia's model hiccups do happen. I will take more care in future additions, but recommend that you take greater care in the way you address individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordancperry (talkcontribs) 23:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. One should never write while angry. I was very angry, which should be even more reason to put one's pen down and go and have sex or something, not a reason to launch into a bitter tirade. My unreserved apologies.
I hope we can work together more productively from now on. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Elgar Violin Concerto

I've been working on this article and have added several things about Billy Reed, on whom you are our resident authority. If you have a moment, perhaps you'd run an eye over it. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh pshaw - but thanks anyway. It looks fine to me, Tim.
The Ysaye stuff was new to me. You just never know what you're gonna find on Wikipedia.
Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution


Than you for contributing to the article I began Culture of Oregon. I felt that Oregon needed an article detailing their culture despite some oppostion. Best wishes! Bruinfan12 (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wuthering Heights (Herrmann)

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Wuthering Heights (Herrmann) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment on my talk page: I've answered there. You did get me adding a couple of necessary words to my user page -- thanks for that! Rothorpe (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


its right at the top of Template:ndash, where it states that no space should go before the template, with one space following immediately afterward (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Odd that you're on top of that kind of truly abstruse detail, yet you make 2 different mistakes with the spelling of "It's", a word we use probably over 100 times a day. There you go. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks, Jack

for the gentle reproach on the ref desk talk page. I've noted your elegant manners many times, and this was yet another example - made me wish I'd been a bit softer on poor old Jayron... My problem, of course, is that I myself am too thin skinned (my skin and hair are the only thin parts of me these days) Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks back, Adam, and I'm glad I didn't come across as sanctimonious, because I certainly am NOT holier than thou, or Jayron, or anyone. It's only when one has already had the experience of losing it in some way - as I often have - that one can see it when others lose it (or temporarily misplace it), and hopefully help them to find it again. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha - have a happy christmas

Yeah so I was wrong - sorry about that - good to see you keep tabs of other bad behaviour - until mitchs comments I never actually knew the origin - cheers - I was having battles in real life and also another part of wiki at the time - hope you get over stuff like that - wp editing is so one dimensional - it is always very easy to get things wrong - cheers SatuSuro 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't keep tabs, I just can't help noticing it when people attribute to me motives I never had.
Getting things wrong? - oh nooo, that's not my style at all. Not at all.
You take care now, y'hear.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Morag Beaton – off-topic

Let me clarify my edit at Morag Beaton's page: I identified the sentence

"Renée Fleming later recorded an aria from Wuthering Heights, leading to renewed interest in the opera.<ref>"Renee Fleming Sings American Operatic Arias", Decca, 1998</ref>"

as off-topic in my edit summary ("-Fleming/Wuthering Heights (off-topic)") and removed it. Further down in the article, I also removed the wikilinks for the composer and the work because they were already linked further up. You added the phrase "unde the composer's direction" which was not present in the article when I edited it, so I couldn't have removed it. You may want to review your edit for overlinking and spelling. Merry Christmas, Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thaks for that. Now, we're saying that she's mainly remembered for Turandot and Wuthering Heights (Herrmann). So far so good. Turandot is linked 3 times (in different sections), so I don't see why Wuthering Heights has to be satisfied with only one link. The two links are in different sections more or less at opposite ends of the article, and I can't see any justification for classifying this as over-linking. If you must de-link something, start your campaign at Turandot, not at Wuthering Heights.
I have corrected my spelling glitch. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Chopin's Études

Bonjour Jack !

Since Chopin did not (nor wanted to) give names to his compositions, why do we add nicknames in the official list of his works? Personally, I find it sufficient that these nicknames are given at the bottom of the articles of the Études, but in the official list ? No ! I would make exception only for Op. 10 n° 3 (Tristesse) and n° 12 (Revolutionary).


--Frania W. (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Frania. I agree 1,000% with your approach. The nicknames for most of the etudes, and for the preludes apart from the Raindrop (15) and the Chord (20), have simply never been in general use. It serves no encyclopedic purpose to include names that may have been dreamt up, somewhere, sometime, by somebody, that went nowhere fast. Even if it was Hans von Bulow who did it, so what, his personal flighte of fancy are no more noteworthy than yours or mine. I'd even remove them from their own articles; but let's make a start on the lists, as you say.
Btw, have you seen my latest baby, List of classical music sub-titles, nicknames and non-numeric titles? If you can come up with a slightly less unwieldy title, I'd be grateful. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Bonsoir Jack !
So happy that we agree at 1001% ! Thank you for having done it.
Will read your latest BB & give you my thoughts.
BTW, who ever said that Étude n° 2 was the most challenging of op. 10 ???
--Frania W. (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I said I agree with you a thousand per cent, not a thousand and one per cent. I dunno, give some people an inch ... :)
I give up, who said that Étude n° 2 was the most challenging of op. 10? I've never heard that before. But then, I can't play any of them to anywhere near a reasonable standard, so it's all academic to me. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can keep that inch... besides, I only talk in centimètres
Here is what I removed at op. 10 n° 2:
  • "Étude Op. 10, No. 2 has been argued[by whom?] as being the most challenging in the Opus 10 set."[2]
Enchantée de faire votre connaissance.
--Frania W. (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Wesołych Świąt, Joyeux Noël, С Рождеством Христовым, and Merry Christmas. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Mele Kalikimaka !
--Frania W. (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Frohe Weichnachten !'
--Frania W. (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
And Yuletide felicitations to you too, Gerda.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, also for just supporting me (without knowing, I guess) in "creating" a role, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Eve in south-eastern Canada

Today is Christmas Eve in my part of the world, while you may just be digesting Christmas dinner. May this season be full of peace and joy for you for you and all those you love. With fondest regards from the Great White North. Bielle (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

U2, Bielle. I assume you got my email, sent the previous day. If not, please advise. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I had missed it. Watch for a reply. Bielle (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You have mail. Bielle (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Polish songs

Hi Jack, thank you for the songs and pointing me to Teresa Zylis-Gara, the first soprano who impressed me. What, please, is "it" in "Some references now include these two songs in Op. 74, increasing it to 19 songs."? Op. 74? Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair question, Gerda. In 1857, Julian Fontana collected the 17 known Polish songs by Frédéric Chopin and published them as Op. 74. A further two songs were published in 1910. When I write "Some references now include these two songs in Op. 74, increasing it to 19 songs", is it not clear that "it" refers to Opus 74? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
But on reflection, it could be improved, so I've done so. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, yes, it became clear when I thought about it. But I like to spend thinking elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JackofOz. You have new messages at WP:RD/H.
Message added 10:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Meilleurs vœux !

Bonne Année 2011 !

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


Thank you, Jack, for tackling the Mass in B minor! How do you feel about Missa brevis vs. Missa Brevis? - Completely different topic. I nominated your Polish songs for DYK, there are questions regarding refs, which I can't answer myself, not so familiar with the subject, I just added some external links. Btw, I have a problem clicking on the Samson link in the Chopin article. Would you take a look at the nom, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I equally despise Missa Brevis. All it takes is a Requested Move tag on the talk page and a few words of explanation. I'd support the move to Missa brevis, and many others would too. If an admin is reading this, you know what to do.
Thanks for the DYK nom. I will check it out. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Still your turn, please check it out, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Henry Wood

Your comment made me chuckle. Many thanks – as so often. Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Tks, Tim. I was almost going to write "... and I suspect others of my generation Wood would too ...", but my courage failed me.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
A statesmanlike decision, one feels. Tim riley (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Student of Hindemith

Thanks for the conductor, who would also be good for DYK, but not without inline citation. Alfred Dürr, nominated yesterday, is already in prep, nice surprise. The Polish songs are my last unresolved topic of 2010, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head, Gerda. Which student of Hindemith are you talking about? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Antonio de Almeida (conductor), do you remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, him. Yes. Actually, I have no memory of ever meeting him, but yesterday I came across an old program, which I know was for a concert I did attend, with his autograph on it, so I must have gone backstage afterwards. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And on the weekend I came across an autograph from Sir Charles Mackerras (back when he was just Mr Mac). Totally forgotten, even after all the publicity when he died last year. God knows what else I'll unearth in my archives. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Jack, happy 2011 to you and many constructive edits! Life's too short for me to go through your list, but you know a paraphrase, caprice or transcription is not (or is only rarely) a variation or set of variations on a theme.... If it ain't called a variation or set of variations, it's probably something different - i.e. doesn't stick to the melodic or bass line/phrase length/structure and/or does not repeat same. Cheers, ---Smerus (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's where we seem to differ. My understanding is that these works do involve variations on a theme, if not in so many words. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
On reflection, maybe it would be a good idea to remove the pieces that are not specifically named "Variations on a Theme of ..." or similar, and only return those for which we can find a citation that attests to their actually containing variations on a theme. That would help keep the list to a more manageable size. There'd still be a sizeable number of them, I think, but WP protocols are inexorable. I'll cull it down later today when I have some time. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You could perhaps if you wish have separate lists for transcriptions, paraphrases, etc.....--Smerus (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, perhaps. First things first. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Now done. The excised titles are welcome back if cited. What remains does not need to be cited because the titles tell the story. Brilliant. Happy? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am always a miserable bugger. But if/when you get round to the lists of paraphrases and transcriptions, I have oodles of obscure things I could add........ :-} --Smerus (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Life's too short. Why not start that list off yourself? (If not now, when? If not you, who?) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe when I get some time- perhaps when in hiding from the 2012 Olympics, e.g.)--Smerus (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous (film)

Jack I noticed you were the last editor at that page. I was looking at it and started to make some copy edits to the "controversy" section. The section is so badly written it's almost incoherent and it contains an original argument also. What do you think about deleting the section, since it doesn't say all that much about the movie that's not predictable to anyone who can fog a mirror? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Variations on a Theme by another composer‎ - completely off topic, but

Dammit, man, can't find the link anywhere, but about a year ago I heard on ABC:RN a free jazz band improvisations coalesce back into the opening chorale of the Matthäus-Passion. Did you happen to catch it? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

'fraid not, sorry Shirt. I rarely listen to RN these days, great social awareness programs and all but far too little music, and I absolutely require music (or silence) but definitely not speaking, when I'm working. What program would it have been on? Jazztrack is only on Classic FM afaik. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Handel in the Strand

I play this piece (or rather stumble through it) and it doesn't conform as I recall to a set of variations. However give me a couple of days grace as I am presently away from home base, but will be reunited with my copy of the score soon, and I will report further.--Smerus (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, Grainger's note at the top of HitS is I think quite unambiguous: 'In bars 1-16 (and their repetition bars 47-60)I have made use of matter from some variations of mine on Handel's 'Harmonious Blacksmith' '. The piece is 86 bars long and is definitely not in theme and variations form. Apologies by the way for my Meyerbeer/Verdi cockup, this just goes to show that one definitely should not dash off WP entries late at night without a source of reference at hand and/or when inebriated. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough about Handel in the Strand.
No need to apologise to me for editing cockups. I don't own any articles around here, except my own user page. But you may feel like falling to your knees and craving the forgiveness of your gods.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Polish songs by Frédéric Chopin

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking of composers names in the Classic 100 lists

I don't believe the composers names should be linked in the Classic 100 works lists (as you have proposed today). The linking of composers names is unnecessary as the composer page is quickly available via the close-proximity work link. In addition, there will be multiple links to the same composer in most lists (which only serves as a distraction). Have a look at how links to composer names has been handled in some of the other lists (e.g. Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC). The strategy of placing a targeted list of composers after the works list has support on a number of the Classic 100 pages. The addition of the composers list also adds functionality (a sortable list of the number of works by each composer). I'm happy to construct the composer list under the works list on the page you've just edited. Thanks for considering this.  GFHandel.   23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now added the Composers section. See what you think.  GFHandel.   00:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I like it. A fine outcome. Thanks for your work. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Antandrus and the Painful Music

Antandrus is looking for someone who reads Russian to help him with a new article on one of the composers in the "It Hurts My Eyes" section I started and wherein you commented. I have given him your name. If you object, let me know and I will scrub it. Bielle (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, watchlists are powerful tools sometimes, Bielle. I'd seen your suggestion and I've already made my comments. Tks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspected you would have had it watchlisted, as we have met there on occasion. However, it seems to me to be rude to mention your name (especially as a candidate for more work) without advising you personally that I have done so. I like to err on the side of politeness if there is any doubt. :>D Bielle (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
And a very good policy too. I personally don't mind my name being bandied about between 2nd and 3rd parties, as long as they're saying nice things about me, but others might take exception, so you're on a winner with that policy, Bielle. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Underpopulated categories

I found the following categories in Category:Underpopulated categories, and I think that you might enjoy working with them.

Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wavelength. My "To Do on Wikipedia" List had dwindled worryingly down to less than 10,000 things, but I knew I could rely on you.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin & the Berlitz School of Languages

Bonjour !

Jack, please go there[3] for my reply to your last comment at his talk page.

Cordialement !

"Frania de Lutèce" a.k.a. --Frania W. (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied in loco. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


I want to apologize for my rudeness yesterday at WP:RDH. You did not deserve that. --Jayron32 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no need for an apology, Jayron. I was not remotely offended. I've seen far worse things around here. But thanks anyway. Best. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oz English.

Bream=Brim,why not icecrim
Maroon=marone,therfore combine both and moonbeam becomes monebim.
John Cowell[[[Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jane Stirling

Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Awesome", eh? Who dares to call me such names? User:Bielle was closer to the mark in this edit summary.  :)
Seriously, I'm honoured but I'll have to take a close look at the involvement before making any decision. Cheers, Sage Ross. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Who dares call you such names? The great and powerful Bibliomaniac does. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I've nominated Bryan Fairfax, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Obukhov, in Russian

Greetings Jack! Do you remember our conversation from a few days ago? I'm busily writing an article (currently in my user space) on Obukhov (Obouhow, Obouhov, Obouhoff...) and have quite a heap of books and journal articles that I've pillaged from our local research library -- however some details of his life I've been unable to ferret out of English- or French-language sources. Can you read this biographical entry and look at the short portion on his mugging in 1949? What happened -- did the thieves steal his manuscripts? (one blog-type source says yes, but it's probably not enough of an RS to use) Also, is there anything useful about his childhood? Using Google I can sort-of-get-it but I'd much rather have a Russian speaker look at it ... All the best, Antandrus (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Honoured to be asked, Antandrus. The results will speak for themselves.  :)
I'm working on it and will respond in the next day or so. The text is hamstrung by the fact that Obukhov's name is often abbreviated to O, which also just happens to be the Russian word for "about". The mindless machine translator cannot possibly know to discriminate this, so the results are a little off in some places. That is, offer than they would otherwise be, which is off enough as it is. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

42 études ou caprices

Hi, per WP:PRECISION I reverted your moving of this article. Since there are no other articles called "42 études ou caprices" it is unnecessary to add (Kreutzer) to the name. Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Well, as I said in my edit summary: They're not so well known that people would have any idea who wrote them.
Literally hundreds of composers could have written a work by this title; indeed, I'm sure there'll be examples of 16 études ou caprices and 7 études ou caprices and various others out there. Even a professor of musicology would be hard pressed to say from the name alone exactly who wrote this 42 études ou caprices, and when, and for what instrument(s) they were scored. At least with the name there, it gave the reader the essential key they need to make sense of the title. (I can hear the thought processes now: "Kreutzer - oh, he was a violinist from around Beethoven's time, wasn't he, so these must be exercises for the violin from around the turn of the 19th century" - as opposed to, say, works for piano by Rachmaninoff from 1925).
But it seems you've taken us backwards, which is a great pity, because we're all here at Wikipedia to share and spread knowledge, not to keep secrets. I hope you will reconsider.
Also, WP:PRECISION says: "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided". I would interpret that to mean that some disambiguation may be desirable even where the name is technically unique. In that sense, my edit was not remotely what I'd call "over-precision". But I would be tempted to call yours "under-precision", for the reasons outlined above. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to ask a third opinion somewhere but the easiest name should always be the name of the article. If there are more "42 études ou caprices" the article should be renamed, or even if there red links to other 42 études ou caprices (....) which I couldn't find. Regarding your last paragraph. If there are more "42 études ou caprices" a disambugation article might be handy. If there aren't, than it's not. Garion96 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion now continues at Talk:42 études ou caprices. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lord Chelmsford - Australian diplomat?

On the question on whether Lord Chelmsford should be considered an Australian diplomat I think he can be considered one as he held the office of Agent-General of New South Wales in London, a diplomatic post. He wasn't an 'Australian' in the strictest sense, I grant you, but as he held an Australian diplomatic post then surely he is considered an 'Australian' diplomat. Your thoughts...Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I'm surprised Jack Lang of all people would have chosen a former Viceroy of India and a pillar of the British establishment to represent NSW's interests in Whitehall.
OK, so he was a diplomat for Australia, but not himself an Australian. I know of no similar case, do you?
Line-ball, I guess. Feel free to restore the cat. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha no probs. I was pretty surprised too when I was researching him for the page and found that. I guess it's just one of those interesting quirks of history that pop up from time to time.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Musical note sequences

Your name came up at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Musical_note_sequences, would you care to comment? There's also the ABACAB thread above it. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Elke Neidhardt

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Now she appears on Portal:Germany. In case you have other DYK related to Germany, please feel free to place it there as well, and in its archive at the same time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks, Gerda. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Otria's articles

Dear Jack,

I have already finished articles. They are edited and can be translated to English section. I studied the language in Auckland university, but this is not enough to translate encyclopedic articles.

Honestly, --- Otria (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Otria, but I really do not understand what you are telling me, or why. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have seen your articles on art and music, and I put my works into the box “Otria's articles”, because of such subject is not in the English section, but I can not translate them professionally. For example, I saw the translation from english or french to russian articles on this theme is beyond ridiculous :) -- Otria (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again. I'm afraid I'm still not really getting the sense of what you're saying. Is there something you want me to do? Or are you just informing me of something? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, on my page into the box “Otria's articles” you have some interesting works, and I think, for you it will be so easy :
  • You have Tchaykovsky - and you will have = Serenade; Tolstoy = Anna Karenina; Skryabin = Skryabiniana; Prokofiev = Visions fugitives; Stravinsky = Return of the Firebird; And in this little box - All the films-ballets by Belinsky; and also Actors, balletmasters and dramatic plays.-- Otria (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bettina Gorton and Annita van Iersel

Hi Jack, thanks for rewriting the areas of concern I raised in regards to the above Prime Minister's wives. I was pretty sure it was incorrect, but then also thought that maybe the early wives who were born in England might not have been considered "Foreign".

There is still the question on just how many children Annita van lersel had so I will do some checking on that one and fix it up. Rocketrod1960 14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although "rewriting" was not quite it. I simply removed a sentence from each article that was not supported by the facts. I remember there was a big thing made about Bettina Gorton's American origin at the time her hubby became PM; had she been born in the equally foreign UK, I sort of doubt that the media would have been all that interested. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bryan Fairfax

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for starting the article on Fairfax. I know there’s a picture floating around of Fairfax with Goossens and Havergal Brian, so circa 1960s, but I am not sure if rights preclude it going up on WP. Regards, Philip Legge User Email Talk 05:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Philip. I must say I had never heard of Bryan Fairfax until about 3 weeks ago when I was reading the article about the December 2010 Brisbane performance of the Gothic Symphony in Limelight. Having written more WP articles on Australian conductors than any other single editor, I thought I knew a thing or two about them. But here was an Australian conductor whose name meant absolutely nothing to me - yet here he was conducting the world premiere of this reputedly amazing work (I've never heard it) back in the '60s. So I thought I'd better investigate him, and the article is the sum total of my gleanings. Please improve it any way you can. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don’t have anything encyclopædic to add! I performed as a singer in the performance in Brisbane, and one of the members of the orchestra had played in the world première under Fairfax, 50 years ago: he had a perhaps unprintable recollection of how rehearsals fared when Fairfax’s temper was tried! I’m a subscriber (and occasional contributor) to the Havergal Brian Society’s newsletter, but I don’t have anything relevant that can be cited from there, either. As most of his working life was spent in England, I would guess there is more material to be gleaned there. Cheers! Philip User Talk Email 04:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


That is a very good question. I'm usually pretty good about apostrophe abuse. I cringe when I see a sign that uses the possessive when it should use a plural. APL (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's just that some people seem to have an unwritten "rule" about certain words; although "cat" seems an unlikely candidate even for such a "rule". I'm always curious about what leads people to spell words this way or that, or why they apostrophise some plurals but not others. I would like to be able to spell out the "rule" that they unconsciously seem to adhere to. Sometimes it's a case of "Apostrophise plurals of foreign words that have not had their spellings anglicised; but not other plurals of foreign origin". You've seen the sort of thing I'm talking about: "This cafe sells pies, cakes, sandwiches, pizza's, foccaccia's, roasts, coffee, tea, drinks, ...".
But let me not leave you with the impression that I am faultless in this regard. I pride myself on my spelling, but every single time I type "interpret", it comes out as "intepret", and I have to go back and correct it. I did it again when I wrote that sentence just now, even though I was focussing on the very issue of how I regularly get it wrong. Brains are really funny creatures. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy JackofOz's Day!

Featured article star.svg

JackofOz has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as JackofOz's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, JackofOz!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...NeutralhomerTalk • 05:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what can I say! Thank you, Neutralhomer. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You're Welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Welcome in the club, you deserved it sooner. To celebrate: the Martinu is approved for DYK, with the British premiere (please forgive me), for the personal reason that the 2009 IDRS conference was dedicated to Evelyn Barbirolli and William Waterhouse, the latter misleading imho, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Concerto for Oboe and Small Orchestra (Martinů)

Orlady (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey there

We seem to be crossing paths a bit, so I feel I should introduce myself. How are things? :) Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I saw the new cats for the world premiere locations so I thought I'd hop on the bandwagon and do the ones for the Sydney Opera House. Don't know why I didn't think of this paradigm before. Thank God some of us think alike. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't actually my idea - the category for Met premieres has been around for a while, and I thought it was a system worth extending. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I wonder how many other undiscovered categories are out there just waiting for the populatory prowess (he says Abrahamically) of the likes of us.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Notre Dame

Thanks! But I can't find ref 2. Would be another good DYK if you expand it slightly, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Ref 2 opens for me, albeit a little slowly. Not sure how to expand it, as what I've got there is the sum total of what I've gleaned from various sources. I'm sure others will be along soon enough.
Btw, thanks again for nominating my work for DYKs. You really don't have to do this, but if it gives you pleasure, be my guest. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Now the pdf opens. (I had a 404 error before, no idea where I may have clicked.) - Don't think I'm nominating "your work". I'm just nominating facts I want to make known. Can I interest you in an Australian bassoonist named Lyndon Watts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


I am happy to fill out the Hulda 1994 cast, although only one of them has a Wikipedia page, and it was a semi-professional production I think. Let me know. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Franck sonata

Just wanted to let you know that I've nominated Violin Sonata (Franck) for DYK. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Shit, that was quick! Big Brother is obviously watching.  :) Thanks, Nyttend. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
My little brother doesn't edit Wikipedia, so I guess I have to :-) You can give thanks to Special:Newpages. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Violin Sonata (Franck)

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Violin Sonata (Franck) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! J04n(talk page) 03:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an error, the ref says the sonata was a birthday present but the article and hook says wedding gift. J04n(talk page) 03:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I added ref 1 to the end of the statement about the wedding present. Good to go. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps not the most helpful comment, but good for a chuckle. Well, by me anyway. :) Matt Deres (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tee hee.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fritz Lehmann

Thank you for shouldering one from my unwritten to-do-list! Nominated and approved for DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

First there was Romeo and Juliet, then Heloise and Abelard, then Bonnie and Clyde ... now Jack and Gerda.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


Just noticed (from bot search results) that you created an article on Luonnotar. I'm amazed it didn't have one already. Kudos! Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Violin Sonata (Franck)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gerhard Taschner

The DYK project (nominate) 18:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


Kisses for the Ravel! (One of the pieces which made the Melos Ensemble. I linked in their history also.) Please have a look at the concerns for the Jules Delsart nom. Formalities, or what? Do you remember the bassoonist mentioned before? He will appear with one of the living legends of the Melos in Wigmore Hall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I am really sorry for the "exchange"! Now what was exchanged? We have a great article about a great personality by now (+ some extra attention produced by the red DYK signal) which we would not have, had I asked your "permission", - this is Wikipedia as I like it. Having said that, I would like to nominate the Ravel, or will you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the hook you're thinking of having? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think that far yet, just that I would like to make it known. I guess that Richard Adeney was the flutist for the Melos recordings - he died recently. Gervase de Peyer, clarinet, is still playing. Just ideas, + I would need a ref on top of the review I added. - It really pleased me to see Delsart with a pic in the queue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Back to Ravel: it could be as simple as that the Melos Ensemble recorded it twice, perhaps mention the harpist. I also like the fact that it was the first Ravel recorded (1923), but the source giving the names says it may have been 1930? I expanded the sources a bit to avoid further "exchange". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Simple done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda. Not a hook I would have chosen for Introduction and Allegro (Ravel), but it works and that's all that matters. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You didn't write Melos Ensemble, smile. You are quite welcome to offer an alternative as for Elke. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I finished a stub on Ivor McMahon just in time to see ALT4 go to prep, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fritz Lehmann

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on this

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Classic 100. This is an article to which you have contributed. We are discussing the possibility of deleting it. You might want to say something. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jules Delsart

Thanks for helping with Did you know Victuallers (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)